Testing a conceptual model related to weight perceptions, physical activity and smoking in adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to test a conceptual model based on theoretical and empirically supported relationships related to the influences of weight perceptions, weight concerns, desires to change weight, friends, age and location in relation to physical activity (PA) and smoking in adolescents. A total of 1242 males and 1446 females (mean age = 15.6 +/- 1.3) were recruited from rural and urban Canadian schools. Study respondents provided self-reports of PA, 'smoking', 'perceived body weight', 'desire to change weight', 'concern about weight gain' and 'friends' smoking and PA behaviors'. Results revealed an acceptable fitting model chi2 (40) = 155.63, P < 0.05, root mean square error of approximation = 0.047 and comparative fit index = 0.98. Large effect sizes for both genders were observed between friends' and adolescents' smoking behavior, and between perceived body weight and desire to change weight. Further, significant differences were identified between the male and female models [chi2 difference (24) = 65.28, P < 0.05]. Several findings of this study point to the need to design programs to motivate adolescent females to adopt healthy weight-control practices and to target young peoples' social networks to promote health behaviors, especially with regard to smoking.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".